Video of Cop Tasing Unresponsive Diabetic "I didn't know he was a freakin' diabetic!"

Originally posted by mglsite
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

So what you are saying is that when a Cop comes up on an accident and the driver is unresponsive the correct action is to Tase them. That makes no sense, what if the driver had a head or neck injury.
They is no reason this Tax Feeder should have tased this young man. And his comment about not knowing he was a Diabetic, looking at his fat azz, he had better learn the symptoms.

Just an opinion.

Reread the article... As I have stated the term unresponsive has differing meanings between medical and law enforcement.

In this case the kid was not unconcious - he was unresponsive. An action drunk people will pull when pulled over or involved in a motor vehicle accident.

As for fat azz and knowing the symptoms how come you didnt bother to stop the officer from taking that action? You, and the others in this thread, had no way of knowing this individual was hypoglycemic until the media reported it after the fact.

Stop trying to claim the moral highground as you and the others in this thread were just as uninformed as the officer was when it came down to the medical condition.

Settled for $5,000 should of been 5 million!!! This kid could of been a Millionaire!!! I'm surprised cops still carry Taser because a good thought out lawsuit can destroy them! Never settle low dollars $$$ when it comes to Taser!

Don't settle at all when someone wrongs you, squeeze every penny out of them with a huge fat lawsuit!

reply to post by Xcathdra

yes, i read them, before commenting.
point is, you seem to think that "he had no way of knowing" and i still claim BS of the highest order ... even my 8yr old grandchild can detect when something like that is wrong. (no medical training needed)

X - it was an auto accident ... there may be injuries ... that's an absolute.
the officer, under no threat, should have WAITED (like the last trigger happy moron who shot the dad) until EMS responded, period.

notice, i didn't say the officer should have known, i said he should have WAITED until the proper authority arrived.
he jumped the gun (literally in this case) and he was wrong.

unresponsive IS a diagnosis, every time, try again.
even drunk and unresponsive is still a DIAGNOSIS, you know, that which you/they aren't qualified to make.

so, are you saying an unresponsive dead person should be tased too ??
you know, you gave an order and he ignored you, so taze the dude and watch that body bounce !!
please man, tell us how it really is out there, eh ??

this is called a "cop out" (geeez, i wonder why?) ...

While protocol states a person with injuries should not be moved, its not an absolute and is situation dependent. Secondly, acting in good faith / civil immunity comes into play.

protocol is not "situation dependent" and never has been.
protocol should be followed not re-written as you/they see fit.

In this case the city settled, and not the officer personally.

yes, i read the outcome, doesn't mean i agree with it.
and besides, it's not the city who pays ~~ it's the taxpayers, yet again, even though it should be the sole responsibility of the thug with a tazer fantasy, inability to follow protocol and unwillingness to be patient until the proper authority arrived.

on the off chance you've never been involved in an auto accident, good luck getting the pd to respond in a reasonable amount of time.
often, they are the last to respond, not the first.

attending to an injured person IS most assuredly out of their area of responsibility or they would be licensed to do such a thing, however, they are not.

you're confused but this wouldn't be the first time.
do tell, when an auto accident is NOT reported to the PD, what authority do they have again ??
or perhaps, when an auto accident occurs on private property, why aren't they (cops) permitted to flaunt their authority ??
oh, that's right, because they have NONE.

i'm beginning to think your perception of "authority" is merely a figment of your imagination.

it does not take hindsight to witness or complicate an injury.
it does not take a totality of circumstance to determine a threat.
nice try but try again cause you are waaaay off the mark.

you also cannot claim a bystander didn't/couldn't know cause you weren't there either, were you?

surprisingly, i've seen and assisted with more diabetic complications in a week than most do in a lifetime and i'm not a medical authority either.

i guess it takes a compassionate person to recognize the ailments of others.
tis a shame most cops don't possess such a skill.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Not one person in this forum knew the person was hypoglycemic until AFTER the incident occured and was reported by media

while that may be true for most in this thread, who knows (in advance) when someone suffers a heart-attack or stroke while driving ?
are you suggesting cops should have authority to man-handle ANYONE regardless of circumstance ??

if so, you'd be standing alone on that opinion.

For law enforcement in the 9th they have ruled a Taser as an intermediate tool.

which takes us back to the original point ... tasers were to be used in lieu of guns ... would you have SHOT this unresponsive person ??? and considered it to be a reasonable response ?

reply to post by Xcathdra

Apparently it took medical and security to hold me down to gain control because nothing else was working.

An unexpected reaction is more common that what people think.

yet, surprisingly, even as a combatant, you were not tased or shot ... hmmmmmmm, maybe cops have a lot to learn in that department, eh ??

and, for the record, i disagree with "it's a tough call" ... really, it's not.
the officer reacted inappropriately, period.
other adjectives could be used (legitimately) but the reality is he acted inappropriately.

The cop's intentions were self-evident by the tone of his voice alone! He was arrogant and bullying. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that shock alone can paralyze. couple that with profuse sweating, harsh breathing, incoherent sounds and sometime tremors (and that's from observation, not training!) and there is a medical problem even someone very young would have reason to show concern for.

Worst case scenario; you have a drunk in that state - barmen with half his stature and no firearms throw them out every day. BULLY!

reply to post by pheonix358
In the 80's when tasers were interoduced,they were to be used in lieu of deadly force.The guidelines have changed,now we should call them what they are cattle prods.

"Semper ubi, sub ubi" Always where under where (pun: always wear underwear). Lets hope it was a strong pair, coz if I'd have done that I'd be soiling them mate!

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by pheonix358

 

In the 80's when tasers were interoduced,they were to be used in lieu of deadly force.The guidelines have changed,now we should call them what they are cattle prods.

I'm buying a cattle prod just to use on the police when they come near me and don't "respect my authoritah" and order to get away from me.

As I keep saying. I'm surprised police don't get shot more on a daily basis the way they treat others.

As a warning to those asshole cops out there: I have an agreement with a few of my relatives that if a cop treats anyone of us like this, we will NOT stop until that cop will one day regret it. I advise ALL to have this same agreement.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I wouldn't expect a police officer to be a medical doctor. I would expect one to have some basic sense. It doesn't take any kind of medical training to know someone in a car accident may be disoriented. How is being unresponsive after a car crash threatening? What if he was deaf? I thought tasers were for protection - not to make someone answer questions.

CJ

Ironically enough you had no idea the person was having a medical condition prior to the officer discovering there was one.

As I said many times before, hindsight is 20/20 and cannot be used to review an officers actions. Its what did the officer perceive the moment he used force.

Ironic isn't the word I would use. I can make basic assumption that if someone is in a car crash they may be dazed or injured. It isn't rocket science. And regardless of what is obvious, why taze the guy? He did nothing to put the officer's life in danger - he was just sitting there.

CJ

Originally posted by InFriNiTee
There should be a law that all law enforcement learn about things like diabetes, epilepsy, etc.

Who needs another freakin' "law"?

What we need are cops with integrity and common sense. Apparently, these are rare characteristics today.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I read all your replies, I even talked about this with several people last night. I possed the question as follows.

If you came upon a car accident and the person behind the wheel was unresponsive, yet seemed to be conscious to semi conscious, what would you think was going on with them?

Every single one of them responded as follows: they probably hit their head and were disoriented: I was just out of it when I got in that wreck last winter, I just sat there stunned for like 20 minutes until the EMS showed up: once I saw a guy get out of his car and walk into oncoming traffic, people act weird after severe trauma somtimes: I would be worried they were hurt, like a head injury, or just stunned senseless....etc.

Not one of the 15 people I asked said that they would assume the person was dangerous.

BTW, since when is noncompliance a threat? It is a universal sign of many things, threat being the least likely. Noncompliance isn't a threat, it is just more f the same old trigger happy, "everyone is a criminal" mindset, of the bully behind a badge mentality.

So what if the guy was intoxicated, most drunks and and or high people get arrested without any trouble at all, why assume they are gonna be violent, and go for the overkill?

I have stopped and helped at several accidents, I have seen many unresponsive people myself, it never occured to me that they were violent, nor did I, or should I take their nonresponsiveness to be aggression, as it is not aggression.

Aggression is an action, nonresponsiveness is inaction, they are not even in the same realm of existance.

Originally posted by jcarpenter

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
Diabetics beware. You are a "freak" according to this, and other cops. This is not the first time this has happened and it wont be the last. Amazing that there is no danger to the cop, yet he fires away with his taser - why? Because an unresponsive person was just sitting there? Is it now so bad you just tase someone who has just been in an accident because they are not responding?

I believe stupid and/or dirty cops are the new norm. They are recruiting the absolutely wrong people and these recruits are either not trained or inappropriately trained. Today's police are a threat to public safety.

Their leadership is not too swift either. I had a summons for a court date delivered to a small town sheriff for serving. One month later the courthouse had no record of it coming back. I called the sheriff and he sounded totally unplugged about the process. He said something to the effect of "they would get 'round to it". Sheesh. This clown would be right at home in a "wrong turn" movie.

Too busy being out tasing random people to have time serving summons, you see.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

This is a tough call to be honest...

There is a medical term called Ketoacidosis. It occurs in people who are diabetic and the symtpoms exhibited by people who are in that stage gives off all of the signs of alcohol intoxication, right down to the persons breath giving of an intoxicating odor.

Other signs -
Inability to engage coherently in a conversation.
Inability to multitask
Slurred speech
intoxicating odor from their mouth / breath
loss of coordination
ability to go from calm to fighting and not realize it.
Inability to concentrate..
Inability to process basic commands
Inability to perform basic motor functions

etc etc etc....

This medical issue is not addressed in the police academy (at least it was not in my region). One of the reasons why is law enforcement is not supposed to "diagnose" and individual. We run into the issue where if we "diagnose", and something goes wrong and makes it way to court, the very first questio we will be asked is:

Defense -
Officer so and so, are you certified in emergency medicine?
Do you have the training in the medical field that allows you to determine / diagnose a medical condition?
Do you have advanced training where you can distinguish between alcohol / drug influence and medical conditions that mimic those conditions?

Officer - No sir

Defense -
Then please explain to this court why you acted outside of your area of responsibility.

Until you are in a position like the officer in this incident, attacking the officer and his actions is problematic. Hindsight will always be 20/20.

Just some food for thought...

edit on 25-10-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

So the correct reaction is then to shoot or tase first, just in case?

Originally posted by Frogs
See, this is the thing with Tasers. Give someone a shiny new hammer and they wander around looking for things to hit with it.

It may be supposed to be a non-lethal force alternative. ie - an alternative to shooting.

However, what it has turned into is a compliance and / or punishment device by the officer. The guy didn't do what the cop said fast enough. Instead of finding out if there was a valid reason for that the cop sought to gain his compliance by punishing him with a zap.

I'm sure that tasing somebody will make the respond faster. While they are then unconcious. Just like shooting/killing somebody (I'm sorry, the correct term in the area of US law enforcement appears to be "correction") will make them remember not to do the same thing again next time.

Originally posted by Starwise
What the hell are they teaching you guys in the academy? SERIOUSLY!

I suppose the answer is either "nothing" or "how to use a gun or a taser (but not when)".

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I wouldn't expect a police officer to be a medical doctor. I would expect one to have some basic sense. It doesn't take any kind of medical training to know someone in a car accident may be disoriented. How is being unresponsive after a car crash threatening? What if he was deaf? I thought tasers were for protection - not to make someone answer questions.

CJ

Ironically enough you had no idea the person was having a medical condition prior to the officer discovering there was one.

As I said many times before, hindsight is 20/20 and cannot be used to review an officers actions. Its what did the officer perceive the moment he used force.

Ironically enough he did exactly the wrong thing.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Honor93
no one is suggesting LEOs diagnose anyone ... most of them are not qualified.

Please read some of the other posts in this thread where people think the officer should have known the difference.

Originally posted by Honor93
however, being unresponsive is a diagnosis to some extent and one that requires medical intervention.

unresponsive is not solely a medical diagnosis. In law enforcement it means the person is being uncooperative - IE I gave the individual verbal commands multiple times and he ignored them - no response / no cooperation / etc.

What if the person didn't understand English, or even the occifer's (sorry, I don't believe that officer is a decent title for this person) variety of it. It might have been a tourist for all you know. And what if the person was deaf?

As I stated before, no one in this thread knew the person was diabetic until AFTER the incident occurred and the media reported on it. Respectuflly quit trying to claim the moral highground by assuming the officer should know something when you did not.

Perhaps not, but that is one of the possibilities a professional, trained and educated policeman should always take into consideration. But I suppose I've got a totally wrong idea of what police staff should do.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by OneisOne

 

All of which are also indicative of an intoxicated individual.

So you mean to say that the correct American police response to intoxication is to simply tase the sh*t out of the individual in question. Or "target" as you prefer to say.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by inverslyproportional

 

I have worked accidents where the driver who caused it was high on drugs. Have you ever fought with a person who had a broken arm yet acted like it didnt hurt?

Yes. My American police friend, I've previously worked for the police and had all the required training. However not in the USA, for which I'm now proud. Your problem appears to be that you at all attempted to fight with the individual in question. It's in fact terribly easy to get behind somebody who is high on drugs (or otherwise), and from there it's terribly easy to immobilise them using just your bare hands and not very much force at all. No tasers, guns or fighting required, just your arms, a calm voice and some confidence. That was part of my training and it works. What was your training about?